Starship Renown question

[darkwing duck1]

On page 30 of the Starships supplement, it states that if a ship is destroyed and recommissioned, that the new ship receives half of the Renown of the original vessel.

I have a problem with this. The suffix is basically a bookkeeping device for Starfleet as well as an honorific for the ship. It is NEVER used in day to day, person to person communications.

Example: A transmission from Starfleet to Enterprise would properly be encoded "from Starfleet Command to Kirk, James T. Captain, USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A". However, Kirk would NEVER hail another vessel saying "This is Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise-A".

It seems to me that the "cachet", as it were, of a certain ship is inextricably linked to the CO in command of her. It seems wrong to penalize a "legendary captain" and ship just because it's a new hull.

I submit that the rule makes more sense thus: upon a change of command, a ship with a Renown Score reduces it's score by half. In the event that this ship is a "legacy" ship (like the Enterprise), the score cannot be reduced below one half of the ORIGINAL ship's score.

This I think is more fair in the case outlined above, and also allows for succeeding crews to "add to the legend", when appropriate, over time.

Thoughts, suggestions, flames?

[KillerWhale]

I disagree - the starship renown serves to recognize the STARSHIP itself, not the crew. Hence the renown transfer for the name. Of course, synergies occur with personal renown - but in the case of a well-known captain, he will already have a good renown and good chances to be recognized with just that.

But YMMV of course!

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by darkwing duck1
On page 30 of the Starships supplement, it states that if a ship is destroyed and recommissioned, that the new ship receives half of the Renown of the original vessel.

I have a problem with this. The suffix is basically a bookkeeping device for Starfleet as well as an honorific for the ship. It is NEVER used in day to day, person to person communications.

Example: A transmission from Starfleet to Enterprise would properly be encoded "from Starfleet Command to Kirk, James T. Captain, USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A". However, Kirk would NEVER hail another vessel saying "This is Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise-A".

It seems to me that the "cachet", as it were, of a certain ship is inextricably linked to the CO in command of her. It seems wrong to penalize a "legendary captain" and ship just because it's a new hull.

I submit that the rule makes more sense thus: upon a change of command, a ship with a Renown Score reduces it's score by half. In the event that this ship is a "legacy" ship (like the Enterprise), the score cannot be reduced below one half of the ORIGINAL ship's score.

This I think is more fair in the case outlined above, and also allows for succeeding crews to "add to the legend", when appropriate, over time.

Thoughts, suggestions, flames?

Two things:

• The guideline you brought up has nothing to do with the honroific suffix of the Enterprises and everything to do with the name of the ship itself. Whether it's Enterprise, Midway, Excalibur or whatever. Each new instance of the ship starts with half the renown of the previous vessel of that name. It allows for comments along the lines of "Let's see if this USS Midway can live up to her predecessor's name." or "Let us make sure that history never forgets the name Enterprise."
• Starship renown is separate from the renown officers have themselves. Yes, it is donated from that received, but that's where the connection ends. If your ship is destroyed, you don't get penalized in any way for it (renown-wise) unless you made a really stupid mistake that got her blown up. And that would be simulated with the Infamy flaw.

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by darkwing duck1
Thoughts, suggestions, flames?

Two things:

• The guideline you brought up has nothing to do with the honorific suffix of the Enterprises and everything to do with the name of the ship itself. Whether it's Enterprise, Midway, Excalibur or whatever. Each new instance of the ship starts with half the renown of the previous vessel of that name. It allows for comments along the lines of "Let's see if this USS Midway can live up to her predecessor's name." or "Let us make sure that history never forgets the name Enterprise."
• Starship renown is separate from the renown officers have themselves. Yes, it is donated from that received, but that's where the connection ends. If your ship is destroyed, you don't get penalized in any way for it (renown-wise) unless you made a really stupid mistake that got her blown up. And that would be simulated with the Infamy flaw.

[qerlin]

Deja vu....

[darkwing duck1]

Originally posted by Doug Burke
Two things:

• The guideline you brought up has nothing to do with the honorific suffix of the Enterprises and everything to do with the name of the ship itself. Whether it's Enterprise, Midway, Excalibur or whatever. Each new instance of the ship starts with half the renown of the previous vessel of that name. It allows for comments along the lines of "Let's see if this USS Midway can live up to her predecessor's name." or "Let us make sure that history never forgets the name Enterprise."
• Starship renown is separate from the renown officers have themselves. Yes, it is donated from that received, but that's where the connection ends. If your ship is destroyed, you don't get penalized in any way for it (renown-wise) unless you made a really stupid mistake that got her blown up. And that would be simulated with the Infamy flaw.

I can see how that works for the rule as written, but let me lay out my case this way:

It makes no sense (to me) for the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A under Captain James T Kirk to have less renown than the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-nil under the same captain. What happened that really changed anything?

It does make sense to me that USS Enterprise NCC-1701-B under Captain John Harriman to have less renown than 1701-nil/A under Kirk. Something significantly more than a hull registry number and ship class has changed, in this case. Yes it is still Enterprise, and that name still carries weight, but it isn't KIRK and the Enterprise.

The fame of the name is inextricably linked to the eras represented by the crews (through the CO). Hard core gearheads may discuss the lineage of a ship by registry and class, but historians will discuss "Kirk's Enterprise" or "Harriman's Enterprise", or "Picard's Enterprise", and THAT history was what I understood Starship Renown to represent...

[Tobian]

The problem with using the example of comparing the Enterprise 1701 with the 1701a is that they are virtually identical ships, so yes, in that sense it is an anomaly. However most ships will be of a completelly different design.

Point in case, if you are comparing the B, C, D - they in turn will get a smaller and smaller proportion of renown (plus the renown they got for themselves) from Captain Kirks famous adventures, but I think it's meant to represent the changing of era's.

I think the idea is that the modifyer is for if an alien /enemy/friend recognises your ship. If you hail him and Captain Kirk comes up on the screen, then it's all down to his renown then anyway! If Khan had been arround to see the Enterprise D, it would not have had the same impact on him by then, because it would have been obvious it was not 'Kirk's ship' from its appearance.

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by darkwing duck1
The fame of the name is inextricably linked to the eras represented by the crews (through the CO). Hard core gearheads may discuss the lineage of a ship by registry and class, but historians will discuss "Kirk's Enterprise" or "Harriman's Enterprise", or "Picard's Enterprise", and THAT history was what I understood Starship Renown to represent...

Then that was the crux of the problem. Is that what Starship Renown is meant to simulate? Yes and no.

Starship Renown is to show how well-known the ship itself is, regardless of Captain or crew. Not in the long view but right now. "Crewman Smith" may have no renown whatsoever, but "Crewman Smith of the Enterprise" is at least linked to a well-known and (in most cases) respected ship. ("You're a security guard on that ship? And still alive? Wow!")

The mechanic is just to present what might happen with later descendants of the original ship. IMO, The Enterprise-A should be considered an exception due to the short time frame and the fact that the same crew was aboard her. But not all ships are Enterprises. The Midway, for example, would have just the name to go on, no letter suiffix or anything else...

How history views the ship would stem partly from the ship's renown and partly from the Narrator's (or the writer's) discretion...

[Doug Burke]

Originally posted by Tobian
The problem with using the example of comparing the Enterprise 1701 with the 1701a is that they are virtually identical ships, so yes, in that sense it is an anomaly. However most ships will be of a completelly different design.

Point in case, if you are comparing the B, C, D - they in turn will get a smaller and smaller proportion of renown (plus the renown they got for themselves) from Captain Kirks famous adventures, but I think it's meant to represent the changing of era's.

I think the idea is that the modifyer is for if an alien /enemy/friend recognises your ship. If you hail him and Captain Kirk comes up on the screen, then it's all down to his renown then anyway! If Khan had been arround to see the Enterprise D, it would not have had the same impact on him by then, because it would have been obvious it was not 'Kirk's ship' from its appearance.

Well spoken, Tobian. Just what I was trying to get across...

[7 of 11]

("You're a security guard on that ship? And still alive? Wow!")

Doug you crack me up...sorry if it's off Thread.

7 of 11
A

[Doug Burke]

[BouncyCaitian]

23rd century Cadet in Security, Graduating Academy, Finding out his post, walking as if in shock: "I'm a dead man."

Other Cadet: "Huh? Were you going? Qo'nos?"

Cadet: "I've been assigned to The Enterprise."

OC: "Oh Gods. I'm sorry."

[Don Mappin]

As the author, I pretty much point you to Doug and Tobian's response for the thinking behind a ship being recommissioned and starship renown.

If the Enterprise warps into a system -- regardless of what year it is -- you think twice about pulling something. The lineage of the ship, for good or ill, has a lasting impression. Some of that can't be escaped by destroying the hull.

"Let's make sure that history never forgets the name... Enterprise."

[Tobian]

In the case of Starfleet too, the Renown of a vessel counts for what that ship has come to represent. Some ships like the Enteprise represent both a force to be reaconed with but also an explorer. Some ships might be known as brave wariors, some as peace makers. This would carry over to the future ships too.

I guess it works the same as character renown - your ship would be known for what it's anscestors would be known for. Especially in the case of Starfleet, where one predecessor often follows in the footsteps of it's predecessor, and it's protractors would also know that.